October 3, 2012

I think she's a lot more "progressive" that Barack Obama wants to look... but for present purposes — beating Tommy Thompson in the Senate race — she doesn't want to look that way either.

And yet she says things like "vision of building a progressive nation." Do her people have any idea how awful that sounds to people who are not on the left, i.e., the people she needs to convince/trick if she wants to win?

There is a real problem with the conservative/progressive labels. they just aren't accurate or even close.

"Conservatives" want a basket of reforms that don't actually represent any time in the past. Some parts do, but many do not. The past policies are what got us where we are. I think most of us want something completely new that has some basic safety net, and a lot of freedom, but just a much smaller public (non-profit) sector. We want to try new things, blow up some sacred cows. It's really progressive.

The "progressives" want to stay with what we have now, and just keep making it bigger as each problem gets folded into it as a new program. They want to conserve the status quo and grow that.

Do her people have any idea how awful that sounds to people who are not on the left, i.e., the people she needs to convince/trick if she wants to win?

It only sounds awful to people who don't realize that "progressive" is the new disguise word for "leftist." They might half-remember some old history class where TR or Wilson were described as progressives and so associate the word with good people working for a better, happier, freer America.

Does that ever bug you the term "working families" as if you, a white collar fairly well-off person, does not really work?

Working family is such a meaningless, undefined term. I suppose Baldwin tries to convey concern to the poor schlubs who aren't Congresscritters with it -- I'm sure it's a term that's been focus-grouped -- but it just fails for anyone who thinks for one minute.

I think most of us want something completely new...a much smaller public (non-profit) sector.

Limited government is a new idea? It's the blueprint. Been there since the founding. Still there. All that's needed is a vigorous refutation of the statist argument that limited government is a reactionary and therefore bigoted concept (just ask hatboy). In other words the usual leftist claptrap has to be confronted and vanquished.

And yet she says things like "vision of building a progressive nation." Do her people have any idea how awful that sounds to people who are not on the left, i.e., the people she needs to convince/trick if she wants to win?

Very good point. I think part of the problem is simply bad writing -- putting the adjective in the wrong place. "Progressive vision" would have been better than "progressive nation."

Is there any awareness on the left, that having to change the word you use to describe your outlook every few years means something?

The problem with "liberal" is not that it got tainted with incorrect connotations, but rather that people figured out what was meant by "liberal". They will eventually figure out what is meant by "progressive" and then progressives will search for a new monniker.

Sometimes they will write self-soothing books like What's the Matter with Kansas? so they won't have to feel bad about their subterfuge. The people may not want the progressive program but the people will benefit, so who cares if we only get there by trickery?